Evilution
The Decline of Man
Evolution: a Faith
Almost four hundred years ago Lord Francis Bacon contributed the scientific method to the realms of science. The scientific method is a form of inductive reasoning which includes three steps: observation, theorization, and experimentation. All reputable scientists accept this method as the only way to gather scientific facts. True science is observation and experimentation, and since the origin of life is something that is unable to be observed or repeated, it is out of the realms of science. However, we can take the information that we do know through observation and experimentation, compare those facts to the evolution model and the creation model, and then decide which model better explains the origin of our universe. Yet, whether you choose evolution or creation, it is an act of faith, since neither can be scientifically proven.
“Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.”
– Sir Arthur Keith, anthropologist
“When it comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (evolution). There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal reasons); therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance.”
– Dr. George Wald, winner of the 1967 Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine
Evolution: a Faith Without a Foundation
Although evolutionist scientists agree that evolution happened, they have yet to come up with a means by which evolution is progressed. They have no answer as to why there is so much variety amongst the organisms of our planet.
“Darwin never really did discuss the origin of species in his On the Origin of Species.”
– Ernst Mayr, Harvard University biologist
“No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has gotten near it . . .”
– Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History
“Evolution is . . . troubled from within by the troubling complexities of genetic and development mechanisms and new questions about the central mystery – speciation itself.”
– Keith S. Thomson, professor emeritus of natural history at Oxford University
One would think that in the almost 150 years since Darwin wrote his book On the Origin of Species that evolutionist scientists would have come up with the answer; but, no, speciation is still “the central mystery” of evolution.
Physics: Evidence against Evolution
In the following section, we will compare the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics to the theory of evolution. As we look at the application of these two laws in the natural world, we will see that they are in direct contradiction with the theory of evolution. These two laws have been tested under all kinds of conditions and have been proven to be true.
The First Law of Thermodynamics (also known as the Law of Conservation of Mass/Energy) states that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only changed from one form to another. This law goes directly against the theory of evolution. According to the theory of evolution, our universe has evolved from nothing and is still evolving today. In contrast, this law is in complete agreement with the Bible, which teaches that creation ended on the sixth day.
“Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. By the seventh day God completed His work which he had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which he had done.”
– Genesis 2:1-2
“It is absurd for the evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything.”
– G. K. Chesterton, author and Christian apologist
The Second Law of Thermodynamics (also known as the Law of Energy Decay) states that every system left to its own devices will tend toward a condition of minimum potential energy and maximum entropy. This law is in even greater contradiction with the theory of evolution than the first. The theory of evolution tells us that almost everything in this universe is evolving into a greater organism. Yet, the Bible is, again, in complete agreement with science.
“And, ‘You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are a work of Your hands; they will perish, but You remain; and they will become old like a garment, and like a mantle You will roll them up; like a garment they will also become changed. But You are the same, and Your years will not come to an end.’”
– Hebrews 1:10-12
“. . . if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.”
– Arthur Eddington, astronomer
There are several arguments that are put forward to try to reconcile the theory of evolution with the laws of thermodynamics. One argument is that the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not apply to open systems (such as the earth). This argument contends that the energy the organisms of this earth gain from the sun is enough to offset the energy lost through entropy. However, there are two serious errors with this argument. The first is that it asserts that if energy is present it is usable. Undoubtedly, there is enough energy coming from the sun to earth to power the hypothetical progression of evolution; nonetheless, this does not mean that evolution has occurred. For example, if you have a load of lumber and materials lying in the sun they do not evolve into a house. Though, if solar panels are set up and used to power machinery, a house can be built (notice that an intelligent designer must be behind this process – man). The second problem with this argument is that it requires that there is such a thing as a closed system. However, there is no such thing as a closed system. All systems receive and impart energy to and from their environment (Morris, 43).
Another argument evolutionists put forward is that the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not apply to living systems. At first glance, the growth process does seem to contradict the laws of thermodynamics. In growth, we see an increase in complexity and design; but, if we look closer, there really is no contradiction at all. The key phrase in the previous sentence was “we see.” We see an increase in complexity and design; but, really, what we see is only the outward manifestation of the great complexity and design already present in the genes (Huse, 62).
The development of life, directed by the instructions contained in an organism’s DNA, presents no problem to the creationist; but it is a great problem for the evolutionist. How did the first life evolve without this pre-existence of order and design? Here again we see the contradiction between the facts of science and the theory of evolution.
Another law of physics that we should look into is the law of cause-and-effect. This law states that every event is the result of a cause. No effect is ever greater than its cause, but it may be lesser. Quoted here is a section from Dr. Henry Morris’s book Scientific Creationism (p. 20):
“Using causal reasoning, the theistic creationist notes that:
The First Cause of limitless Space must be infinite
The First Cause of endless Time must be eternal
The First Cause of boundless Energy must be omnipotent
. . . The First Cause of infinite Complexity must be omniscient
The First Cause of Moral Values must be moral
The First Cause of Spiritual Values must be spiritual
The First Cause of Human Responsibility must be volitional
The First Cause of Human Integrity must be truthful
The First Cause of Human Love must be loving
The First Cause of Life must be living
“We conclude from the law of cause-and-effect that the First Cause of all things must be an infinite, eternal, omnipotent, . . . omniscient, moral, spiritual, volitional, truthful, loving, living Being! Do such adjectives describe Matter? Can random motion of primeval particles produce intelligent thought or inert molecules generate spiritual worship? To say that Matter and its innate properties constitute the ultimate explanation for the universe and its inhabitants is equivalent to saying that the Law of Cause-and-Effect is valid only under present circumstances, not in the past.”
Mathematics: Evidence against Evolution
The improbability of any complex system arising by chance is proof enough that evolution is impossible. A look at the science of probability should convince any person that it takes much greater faith to believe in evolution than in creation.
In a “warm little pond” of completely accessible components, the probability that any number of parts can come together and form a functioning organism is very small if the number of components to the organism is large. Assuming that there is only one combination that will function correctly, the method of finding the probability that the parts of a three part system could come together correctly is done by multiplying the number of parts in a series together. That is, if there are three parts, you would multiply 1 x 2 x 3 = 6. If there are four parts, you would multiply 1 x 2 x 3 x 4 = 24. If there are n parts (n being a variable), you would multiply 1 x 2 x 3 x …x n. The answers to these multiplication problems are called factorials. The factorial of three (written “3!”) is six. Therefore, the probability that an organism of 100 parts (ridiculously simple compared to the most basic living things) would come together correctly and form a functioning organism is one out of 10158 (100!= 10158). The number 10158 would be equal to a number written as “one” followed by 158 “zeroes.” To put this gigantic number into perspective, there are only 1080 electrons in the universe (Morris, 69).
Now, the evolutionist might say that we have incorrectly calculated the probability of our 100-part integrated system evolving. He might say that he does not believe that the 100-part integrated system evolved all at once, but rather over time – piece by piece. He believes that the organism developed by a slow mutation process of trial and error. However, our evolutionist friend has only made his case harder to prove. To determine the probability of a 100-part integrated system developing by a step-by-step process, you would have to take 1 out of all the numbers represented in the series 1! + 2! …+ 100! Obviously, this number is gigantically larger than 10158.
“The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero.”
– Ilya Prigogine, a Belgian physicist and winner of the 1977 Nobel Prize in chemistry
Compared to a living, reproducing organism, our one hundred-part system is very primitive. According to NASA, the most basic type of protein molecule that could be classified as living is composed of at least four hundred linked amino acids (Huse, 68). Furthermore, each amino acid is composed of several atoms, and each atom is made of an amazing arrangement of neutrons, protons, and electrons. Life cannot be synthesized in the laboratory by “rocket” scientists; how can one believe that life, against such insurmountable odds, came about by chance?
“Great is our Lord, and of great power: His under-standing is infinite.” – Psalm 147:5
Biology: Evidence against Evolution
Comparative anatomy proves that there is a Creator.
Around 1800, George Cuvier established the science of comparative anatomy – the study of the likenesses and differences in the body structures of the organisms of our world. The fact that many animals and humans share basic traits in skeletal and other structures has been interpreted by many evolutionist as proof that we all evolved from a common ancestor. Creationists more logically interpret this similarity as proof that we all have the same Creator. We were all created to live under the same conditions. We eat the same foods; we breathe the same air. In creation, God altered His basic design when a creature needed a unique feature or special capability. We humans do the same thing with our creations. All vehicles have wheels, seats, lights, a steering system, and an engine, but we adjust the basic design for racing, luxury, mass transit, or cargo.
Comparative anatomy also provides some damaging evidence against evolution. Certain creatures that, according to the theory of evolution, are not even remotely related have very similar organs. For example, an octopus’s eye is very similar to a human eye; but humans are not even remotely related to octopuses.
Transitional forms are impossible.
For an organism to evolve into a higher organism by means of a step-by-step process, it must remain completely functional at every stage or it will die. For example, organs such as the heart or lungs (essential organs) must always be functioning for the creature to stay alive, and organs such as the eyes or ears (nonessential organs) must also remain functional for the animal to compete for survival. Darwin acknowledged this fact in his book Origin of Species when he said that “[i]f it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”
“To suppose that the eye . . . could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.”
– Charles Darwin
“It’s bad enough accounting for the origin of such things [as eyes] once, but the thought of producing them several times according to the modern synthetic theory makes my head swim.”
– Frank B. Salisbury
“The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way [by mutations and natural selection] is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.”
– Sir Fred Hoyle, astronomer
According to the theory of evolution, bats evolved from small, four-legged, rodentlike mammals similar to modern shrews. A bat’s wings are composed of very long finger bones between thin layers of skin. For a shrew’s forepaws to become wings, its fingers would, obviously, have to grow to the length of a bat’s “fingers.” Needless to say, this process would take a very long time; therefore, the shrew’s paws would be useless for grasping or running long before they became wings. This creature with “wing-paws” would not be able to feed itself or flee from predators – such a malformed creature could not have reproduced or survived long enough to develop into a bat. This logical assumption is confirmed in the fossil record. There are no transitional forms between insectivores and bats. Icaronycteris, a bat that evolutionists tell us lived during the “Eocene” period (57.8 million years ago), is the “earliest” known bat fossil – it is one hundred percent bat.
Reproduction is the most important factor of survival for a species. If a species cannot reproduce, it will quickly go extinct. On the evolutionary “family tree,” reptiles descended from amphibians. However, there is no possible way that the amphibian egg could transform into a reptile egg. Any transitional form would be a hostile environment for the developing embryo, and it would certainly die. Most differences between the amphibian and the reptile eggs would have to be simultaneously changed before an amphibian could ever become a reptile. For example, the egg of an amphibian is not protected by a shell, as is a reptile egg, but is surrounded by a jelly. In a reptile egg, the embryo is connected to a yolk sac and an allantois (a part of the developing animal’s conceptus which helps the embryo exchange gases and handle liquid wastes). In an amphibian egg the embryo is not connected to either a yolk sac or an allantois, but is actually part of a yolk mass. Furthermore, the egg is not the only thing that would have to change – the amphibian’s entire reproductive system would have to be altered to be able to produce these new reptile eggs. These, along with many other such differences, make it clear that any transitional form between an amphibian and a reptile would be impossible.
Now that amphibians have miraculously evolved into reptiles, it is now time to take flight! That’s right, reptiles must now become birds. Everyone knows that while running, we breathe more heavily because our muscles require more oxygen. Of course, our breaths are limited by the capacity of our lungs. Flying requires much more oxygen than running; and therefore, birds are equipped with several air sacs to supply them with the extra oxygen. Needless to say, reptiles do not have these. In fact, a reptile’s entire body cavity would have to be reconstructed to be able to accommodate these air sacs and the muscles necessary for flight. Furthermore, reptiles do not even have the same type of lungs that birds have. A reptile’s lungs are supplied with oxygen during inhalation, and the air leaves the reptile’s lungs during exhalation. In contrast, a bird’s lungs are supplied with oxygen during inhalation and exhalation by means of their air sacs. When a bird inhales, air passes straight through the lungs into the air sacs behind the lungs. When the bird exhales, the air is drawn back through the lungs for a second time, thus allowing the bird to draw the maximum amount of oxygen out of each breath. The differences between the lungs of reptiles and birds extend to many other areas as well. Reptiles receive oxygen in branch-like bronchi; birds receive oxygen through tubular parabronchi. Parabronchi have a cross-flow design, which allows air to flow through a bird’s lungs instead of in and out of them. In fact, birds are the only vertebrates that have parabronchi. In addition, a bird’s lungs are rigidly attached to the bird’s frame – they do not expand and contract within the chest cavity. Therefore, we see that the bird’s respiratory system could not have developed from “numerous, successive, slight modifications” of the reptile respiratory system but only from a massive reconstruction.
Natural selection prevents evolution.
These examples should demonstrate to anyone that transitional forms could not have existed. Even if it were somehow possible for a creature to start developing into another life form, natural selection would eliminate it! Our “shrew-bat” would be incapable of feeding itself or fleeing from predators. The “amphitile” would not last longer than one generation, and who knows what would happen to a “repbird” with a morphing respitory system! What many evolutionists do not understand is that natural selection is not a synonym for evolution, and it does not prove evolution. In fact, creationists used the idea of natural selection first to prove creation! Twenty-four years before Darwin published The Origin of Species, Edward Blyth, a creation scientist, published a book on natural selection in the view of special creation. Natural selection is one of the many barriers set into place by God to prevent “evolution.”
“The [peppered moths] experiments beautifully demonstrate natural selection – or the survival of the fittest – in action, but they do not show evolution in progress, for however the populations may alter in their content of light, intermediate, or dark forms, all the moths remain from the beginning to end Biston betularia.”
– L. Harrison Matthews, in the introduction to the 1971 edition of Origin of Species
Evolutionists have often cited the peppered moths as evidence that evolution has been observed. However, all that we have seen in the peppered moths is natural selection in action. The moths did not acquire new traits – no moth that at one time was light-colored ever became dark-colored. There was no increase in complexity or design. There had always been light, intermediate, and dark-colored varieties of the peppered moths. What had happened was a shift in population ratio between the light-colored moths and dark-colored moths. The reason for the shift was because the moth’s environment had changed (Huse, 108). Before the industrial revolution in England, tree bark had a lighter color; therefore, the lighter colored moths were camouflaged and the darker moths were easily eaten by birds. After about forty-five years of industrial growth in England, the bark of trees in industrial centers, such as Manchester, had become sufficiently darkened by pollution to the effect of camouflaging the dark-colored moths and revealing the light-colored ones. Hence, the light-colored moths were eaten and the dark-colored moths flourished until they constituted about ninety-five percent of the moth population.
Punctuated equilibrium does not save evolution.
Also called the “hopeful monster” hypothesis, the punctuated equilibrium hypothesis stipulates that evolution did not happen over millions of years but rather by quick macromutations. Adherents to this belief claim that new creatures have been created by sweeping rearrangements of the genetic code in one generation; thus, producing a new but completely functional organism in one generation. This hypothesis can be proven false on several points. First, if this hypothesis is true, we should be seeing it in action today. If new creatures are developed quickly in this manner, they should be evolving today. Second, macromutations are impossible. Even Darwin rejected the idea that evolution could be accomplished in this manner:
“He who believes that some ancient form was transformed suddenly through an internal force or tendency into, for instance, one furnished with wings . . . will further be compelled to believe that many structures beautifully adapted to all the other parts of the same creature and to the surrounding conditions, have been suddenly produced; and of such complex and wonderful adaptations, he will not be able to assign a shadow of an explanation. . . . To admit all this is, as it seems to me, to enter into the realms of miracle, and to leave those of Science.” (Origin of Species, 229)
Why are macromutations impossible?
Macromutations are impossible because mutations can only destroy or neutrally effect the genes that we already have. That is, mutations can never add genetic information, but they may subtract it. If a creature does not have the genes necessary to develop wings, no mutation will give it the genes needed. However, if an animal does have the genes which guide the development of wings, a mutation could damage those genes. In fact, most mutations (99.99%) are destructive (Huse, 90). Furthermore, mutations are very rare – only one mutation occurs in every ten million duplications of the DNA molecule (Parker, 163).
Darwin’s theory was postulated at a time when the science of genetics had not been developed yet, and men such as George Mendel were just starting to understand its secrets. Mendel, unlike Darwin, established his findings on extensive experiments. Mendel used plants to try to discover how traits are passed down from parents to offspring. Mendel and other geneticists concluded that there are boundaries to biological change in kinds (horses, dogs, cats, etc.), because variety in a species is governed by pre-existing variety in their genes (Parker et. al, 385). You can only lose, not gain, genetic information through mutations.
Paleontology: Evidence against Evolution
When Darwin wrote Origin of Species, paleontology had not yet yielded up a large amount of fossils; and the lack of “missing links” was dismissed, as evolutionists believed that over time our ancestors would be unearthed. In fact, Darwin even admitted this as a flaw to his own theory:
“[T]he number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, [must] be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.” (Origin of Species, 292-293)
“The geological record is extremely imperfect. . . . these causes, taken conjointly, will to a large extent explain why . . . we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all extinct and existing forms by the finest graduated steps. . . . He who rejects this view of the imperfection of the geological record, will rightly reject the whole theory.” (Origin of Species, 342-343)
There is no longer any lack in fossil finds today. Since Darwin’s time, over 100 million fossils have been unearthed (Parker et. al, 367); and the millions of transitional forms that would be required to bridge the gaps between kinds have not been found. Even the fossils that evolutionists have proposed as transitional forms are controversial and, comparatively, very few in number; and many of them are badly fragmented. Furthermore, these proposed transitional forms represent a very small number of species. This is especially true of plants, which are virtually devoid of an evolutionary tree.
“It has been hoped that extinct plants will ultimately reveal some of the stages through which existing groups have passed during the course of their development, but it must be freely admitted that this aspiration has been fulfilled to a very slight extent, even though paleobotanical research has been in progress for more than one hundred years.”
– Professor C. A. Arnold, paleobotanist
“. . . but I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation.”
– Professor Corner, botanist
Perhaps one of the most damaging pieces of evidence against evolution from paleontology is the complete lack of any Precambrian fossils. Highly organized and diversified, multi-cellular marine invertebrates are found in lower Cambrian rocks, but there is a complete absence of any fossils in pre-Cambrian rocks. Obviously, it would have taken millions of years for these complex marine invertebrates to have evolved, but there is absolutely no fossil evidence as to how it may have occurred. Evolutionists can only offer what they think might have happened. These “Cambrian” fossils have no “ancestors.” If evolutionists cannot even explain “the origin of species,” how can they explain “the descent of man”?
“If there has been evolution of life, the absence of the requisite fossils in the rocks older than the Cambrian is puzzling.”
– Marshal Kay and Edwin Colbert, Stratigraphy and Life History
Let us continue to the next step – invertebrate to vertebrate. Not one fossil has ever been found of a transitional form between invertebrates and vertebrates, although this transition is thought to have taken about five hundred million years and have involved billions of animals.
“The regular absence of transitional forms is an almost universal phenomenon . . . . It is true of almost all orders of all classes of animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate . . . .”
– George Gaylord Simpson, vertebrate paleontologist
“In the sediments of late Silurian and early Devonian age [about 400 million years ago], numerous fishlike vertebrates of varied types are present, and it is obvious that a long history had taken place before that time. But of that history we are mainly ignorant.”
– Dr. Alfred Romer, vertebrate paleontologist
Another piece of damaging evidence against evolution is the existence of “living fossils” such as the coelacanth. For many years, the coelacanth was put forward as a link between fish and amphibians because of its unique fins. Instead of being attached to the skeletal system, a coelacanth’s fins are attached to its body by thick, fleshy lobes which allows the fins to be more freely rotated. It was said to have dwelled in shallow waters and was often depicted crawling out of the water onto land using its lobed fins as legs. Coelacanths were assumed by evolutionist to have gone extinct during the late Cretaceous period (eighty million years ago) because of a lack of coelacanth fossils in the subsequent strata. However, in 1938 a live coelacanth was found about nineteen miles off the coast of South Africa. Not only are coelacanths alive today, but they live in deep waters! The most damaging piece of evidence that coelacanths provide against evolutionists is the fact that these fish have not changed or “evolved” over the eighty million years they have been absent from the fossil record. Modern coelacanths are exactly the same as fossil coelacanths.
“Throughout the hundreds of millions of years the coelacanths have kept the same form and structure. Here is one of the great mysteries of evolution.”
– Jacques Millot, Scientific American
Another proposed “fishibian” is the tiktaalik. This fish is apparently the first link in the fish/amphibian transition. Three tiktaalik fossils were found in Canada, six hundred miles from the North Pole, which evolutionists declared to be 375 million years old. These creatures had bones in their front fins that corresponded to a shoulder, upper arm, elbow, forearm, and a wrist. However, the bones in the tiktaalik’s fins have no axial skeleton connections; this is very important because without this direct connection, the tiktaalik could not have done any walking (http://www.icr.org/article/2962/). Furthermore, the tiktaalik fossils that have been found are incomplete. Scientists have no idea as to what the hind fins and tail looked like. Nevertheless, evolution artists, as usual, have shown a complete disregard for the lack of evidence and have shown us what they think the tiktaalik looked like.
How they went from the fossil shown to the drawing above is beyond reason. However, evolutionists commonly use terms such as “probably,” “we suppose,” “may have,” “maybe,” “quite possibly,” “we suggest,” “it appears,” “more than likely,” “speculated to have,” “if,” and other such words which suggest that they don’t have a clue as to what they are talking about.
“But if (and oh! What a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes . . . .”
– Charles Darwin
In The Collapse of Evolution (p.89), Huse tells us that in Darwin’s books The Descent of Man and The Origin of Species, he used the phrase “we may suppose,” or some similar phrase, over eight hundred times.
According to evolutionists, the next step after the tiktaalik was the elginerpeton. The only known fossil remains for the elginerpeton are a femur, a tibia, and some fragments from the upper and lower jaw, the shoulder, and the hip. Another piece that may be associated with this creature is possibly a humerus. Absolutly no remains of the creature’s feet or “fin/feet” were found. Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that this animal had a tail; but, again, our evolution artists have supplied this part of the animal’s anatomy for us.
Other such links in the supposed evolution of amphibians from fish are obruchevichthys, hynerpeton, tulerpeton, and pederpes. The only known fossil of obruchevichthys is a jawbone; yet, evolutionists have declared it to be a tetrapod (having four leg-like appendages). The known fossils of hynerpeton include two shoulder girdles, two lower jaws, a jugal bone and some gastralia. Again, artists have decided to help the hynerpetons maintain their evolutionary image by adding a tail (see image at right). Tulerpeton fossils are also incomplete. All that has been found are forelimbs, hindlimbs, a fragmented skull, and a partially complete pectoral girdle. Pederpes is known by an almost complete skeleton, “only the tail and some bones of the skull and limbs were missing.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederpes) A logical suggestion would be that perhaps, Pederpes didn’t have a tail. It just might be a possibility. Yet, again, we have been educated as to what the “rest” of both these creatures looked like by evolutionary artists.
Tulerpeton Pederpes
(artist’s conception)
The next step of evolution that evolutionists think they have convincing evidence on is the evolution of birds. We have already seen that such a transition would be impossible from a biological point of view, and we shall see that paleontology supports this conclusion. A few species such as the yixianosaurus and the pedopenna are put forward as the feathered dinosaurs that were the “first steps” in the evolution of birds, and these animals are depicted as very bird-like. However, yixianosaurus is known only from a pair of fossilized arms complete with fossilized feathers, and pedopenna is known only from its hind legs. The animal proposed as the first transitional form is archaeopteryx. Only nine archaeopteryx fossils have been found, which is very odd if the evolution of birds took eighty million years. Furthermore, if the evolution of birds took so long, why has the archaeopteryx been put forward as the only transitional form?
If archaeopteryx did evolve from reptiles, there should be, at least, hundreds of transitions with “scale/feathers” and “arm/wings.” Archaeopteryx is noted for its well-developed flight feathers; its feathers are exactly like the feathers of “modern” birds. Also, the archaeopteryx’s bones were hollow, just like those of “modern” birds (Parker et. al, 373). The archaeopteryx did have some atypical characteristics such as a small breastbone, teeth, an elongated tail, and claws on its wings; but there are several birds, alive and extinct, that possess a few of these unique features.
Not only are evolutionists unable to explain the origin of the archaeopteryx, but they are also unable to show through the fossil record how flying reptiles (such as pterosaurs) evolved from their non-winged ancestors.
Finally, if archaeopteryx is the ancestor of all birds, then there should not have been any birds living before archaeopteryx. Yet, this is not the case. Protoavis is a bird that has been discovered in what evolutionists call the “Upper Triassic” level of the geological column. Thus, the evolutionists have dated the protoavis as being seventy five million years older than the archaeopteryx (http://www.bsu.edu/web/00cyfisher/), which was discovered in “Jurassic” levels of the geological column. Clearly, if there were birds flying around before archaeopteryx, archaeopteryx could not have been their ancestor.
“The origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved.”
– W. E. Swinton
According to evolutionists, the platypus is a leftover from the evolution of mammals from birds. Obviously, the platypus exhibits some very strange characteristics for a mammal – several of which are very birdlike – such as a bill, webbed feet, and reproduction through laying eggs. However, the platypus also has pockets in its jaws for carrying food and a spur on its rear legs, which can inject poisonous venom – both of which are traits not found in birds or mammals. Furthermore, platypuses have a form of “radar” using electric shocks! Obviously, our Creator gave the platypus a mosaic of characteristics best suited for its environment.
The fossil record supports this conclusion – platypus fossils are exactly the same as “modern” platypuses (Huse, 110). In addition, many mammals that are more typical have been found in strata “lower” than the layers that platypuses have been found in.
The “horse series” is another “branch” in the “evolutionary tree” that some evolutionists believe they have convincing evidence on. Eohippus, first named Hyracotherium because of its similarities to the African hyrax (rock rabbit), is considered by evolutionists to be the first step in the evolution of horses. However, the Hyracotherium/Eohippus has little resemblance of a horse and is very similar to living creatures of the genus Hyrax. Both the hyrax and the Hyracotherium are the size of a small dog and have four toes on the front feet and three on the rear. The creatures have very similar cheek teeth, which are more like the teeth of rhinoceri than those of horses (www.bible.ca).
Eohippus (“dawn horse”), Orohippus, and Pliohippus are supposedly some of the forerunners of the modern horse. However, Eohippus had 18 pairs of ribs; Orohippus (Eohippus’s descendent) had only 15 pairs of ribs; Pliohippus had 19 pairs; and the modern horse is back to 18 pairs. The number of lumbar vertebrae also changes from six to eight and then back to six again (www.bible.ca). This fluctuating number of bones strongly suggests that the “horse series” is a group of unrelated animals with a similar overall body plan. When evolutionists present the horse series in biology textbooks, they emphasize the decrease in the number of toes in the animals and the increase in the size of the animals. However, they fail to mention the fact that Neohipparion, which had three toes, lived contemporaneously with Pliohippus, which had only one toe! They also fail to tell their students that, according to the theory of evolution, North American ungulates evolved their rear foot from three toes to a single hoof at the same time that South American ungulates were evolving their rear foot from one hoof to three toes! Furthermore, the system of arranging the creatures in order of increasing size is faulty. “Modern” horses can range anywhere in size from the seventeen inch Fallabella (about the size of the Hyracotherium) to the eighty inch Clydesdale.
Even though there are thirty-two species in the “horse series,” the lack of transitional forms still presents problems. There are no fossils showing the transition between Eohippus and its presumed ancestor the Condylarth (Kofahl, 27). Also, there are no transitions between each of the “horses.” Each animal appears in the fossil record without showing how certain characteristics of the horse were developed, such as teeth. In each of the animals there are either grazing teeth or browsing teeth, but no transitions (Moore, 403).
“This [gap] is true of all the thirty-two orders of mammals . . . The earliest and most primitive known members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous sequence from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed.”
– George Gaylord Simpson
The most damaging evidence against the “horse series” is the fact that “modern” horses have been found in the same or older layers of the geological column that Eohippus fossils have been found in! Equus nevadenis and equus occidentalis, two “modern” horse species, have been found in the same rock formation as an Eohippus fossil (Wysong, 300-301). In addition, the animals that the “horse series” is made up of have been taken from around the world to make the series. The series starts in North America and hops around to Europe, India, and South America!
“The uniform, continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers never happened in nature.”
– George Gaylord Simpson
“But the facts of paleontology conform especially well with other interpretations . . . e.g., divine creation . . .”
– D. Dwight Davis, vertebrate morphologist
“[The horse series] has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff.”
– Niles Eldredge, American Museum of Natural History
“In spite of these examples, it remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of families, appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.”
– George Gaylord Simpson
“The origin of the rodents is obscure . . . . Presumably, of course, they had arisen from some basal, insectivorous, placental stock, but no transitional forms are known.”
– Alfred Romer, paleontologist
“If the evolutionary origin of the higher animals is obscure, the origin of insects is completely blank. Insects occur in fantastic number and variety, but there is no fossil clue to their development from some kind of evolutionary ancestor.”
– Dr. Henry Morris
Anthropology: the Descent of Man
Evolutionists have informed us that the australopithecines were the first step between humans and apes. The “Taung child” (Australopithecus africanus), Zinjanthropus (Australopithecus boisei), and “Lucy” (Australopithecus afarensis) are three very famous australopithecines that have been proposed as transitional forms. The fossil evidence for the “Taung child” was a skull which was later redetermined to be that of an extinct ape. Zinjanthropus, another skull, was also reclassified as an ape when it became clear that it was not humanlike at all. Interestingly, Zinjanthropus’s discoverers, Dr. Louis Leakey and his wife, Mary, found the skull broken into four hundred different pieces, but were fully convinced that it was the remains of a human ancestor before they had even completely unearthed it (Parker et al., 377). In fact, it was not the skeletal features of Zinjanthropus that attracted attention to the finds in the first place – it was tools. Upon finding the tools, Louis Leakey assumed that the creature, Zinjanthropus, had made them. (Isn’t it interesting that Dr. Leakey knew that the tools had a creator?) However, thirteen years later, Richard Leakey, Dr. Louis Leakey’s son, discovered the bones of a “modern” man underneath the bones his father had uncovered (Morris and Parker, 160). The true creator of the tools had been found. “Lucy” was also a member of this extinct class of apes, and there is no reason other than the assumption of evolution to believe that “Lucy” is an ancestor of man.
The fact that the australopithecines could walk upright is often cited as proof that they are ancestors of man. Yet, there is no less reason to believe that the australopithecines are the ancestors of the living pygmy chimpanzees when you consider their other ape-like qualities. Pygmy chimpanzees, which are only slightly shorter than average chimps, can walk upright and spend a lot of time doing so. Furthermore, the australo-pithecines could not have been the ancestors of man if humans were walking around before the australopithecines were fossilized. Kanapoi hominid, a fossil human upper arm, was found in rock strata in Africa that was laid down before the rocks that the australopithecines were found in was laid (Morris and Parker, 161). In addition, fossils of “modern” man have been found in mid-Tertiary rock, which, according to the evolutionary geological column, is also older than the australopithecine’s rock formation.
There is further evidence that man, quite literally, was walking around before the australopithecines were fossilized. Not very far from the Leakey’s finds was found fossilized human footprints! Apes and humans have many similar bones but their footprints are completely different. An ape basically has four hands – their feet have opposable thumbs. Nothing other than a man could have made the footprints; but one scientist searched for some evidence that would show that some animal might have made the prints. He even had a dancing bear jump in the mud to try to replicate the prints (Morris and Parker, 162). He could not find any animal which could have made the prints and referred to his conclusion with terms such as “shocking,” “disturbing,” and “upsetting.”
Our closest relatives in the supposed evolutionary tree of life are the Neanderthal man and the Cro-Magnon man. When the Neanderthal man was first discovered, our very imaginative evolutionary artists portrayed him as a brutish sub-human cave-man with slouched posture. However, the Neanderthal man was just as much human as “modern” man, and the stereo-type cave-man image he was given was nothing more than the evolutionist’s desire for evidence supporting their belief. The same is true for the Cro-Magnon man. The fact is, the Neanderthals and the Cro-Magnons lived as contemporaries with “modern man.” Both the Neanderthal man and the Cro-Magnon man have been reclassified as Homo sapiens.
Hoaxes
East Africa, Java, northern China, and northern Europe – these are just a few of the places that the fossils forming man’s “evolutionary tree” have been taken from. This sporadic jumping around alone implies that the “branch of man” is a hoax. However, there is further evidence.
The “Nebraska Man,” discovered in 1922 by Harold Cook in the Pliocene deposits of Nebraska, was one of the first fossils proposed as a transition between man and ape. In fact, the “evidence” of the “Nebraska Man” was used in the Scopes trial in an attempt to prove evolution. The fossil evidence for the “Nebraska man” was one tooth. William Jennings Bryan, the defending lawyer, could only say that he thought the evidence was too inadequate and requested more time. Of course, he was ridiculed by the scientific “experts”; however, time would vindicate Mr. Bryan. Years later, the rest of the skeleton from which the tooth came from was found. “Nebraska Man” was really “Nebraska pig.” The tooth had belonged to an extinct species of a pig! The scientific “experts” who mocked Mr. Bryan had made an ancestor of man out of the tooth of a pig.
“I believe this is a case in which a scientist made a man out of a pig and the pig made a monkey out of the scientist.” – Dr. Duane Gish
The “Nebraska Man” was not the only “ancestor of man” that was based solely on one bone. Other examples include an elephant’s knee-bone (Huse, 100), a dolphin’s rib, an extinct horse’s toe, and an alligator’s leg bone (Parker et al., 377). The “Southwest Colorado Man” was also based upon a tooth – a horse’s tooth (Criswell, 87).
Teilhard de Chardin S. T. was an evolutionist who believed that evolution was in perfect harmony with Christianity. He wrote several books trying to argue that point, and when he became frustrated by the lack of evidence for Darwin’s theory, he decided to create a much-required “missing link” (Huse, 101). Teilhard had filed down the teeth of an orangutan’s jaw fragment to make them look more human-like, and then treated the fragment with bichromate of potash to give it the appearance of great age. Fragments of a human skull were also “aged,” and a chimpanzee’s canine tooth was colored brown and added to the hodgepodge. Teilhard had then placed his “human ancestor” in a place where it could be easily be found; and it was, by Charles Dawson in 1912. Dawson took the remains to the British Museum to be examined by Dr. Arthur Smith Woodward, a paleontologist, who stated that the bones were about 500,000 years old! The “Piltdown Man,” Teilhard’s creation, was used as proof of evolution for nearly forty years until in 1953 when Teilhard’s hoax was exposed using a new dating method that used fluoride absorption (Huse, 100). Evolutionists were so convinced that “Piltdown Man” was an ancestor of man that they had not noticed the obvious file marks on the teeth. Most amazingly, the fact that one tooth had been filed down to the pulp cavity and plugged with chewing gum went unnoticed (Parker et al., 376). More critical examination than the evolutionists had given “Piltdown Man” revealed that the jawbone was from an ape that had died not more than fifty years before (Huse, 100).
The fossil remains of Ramapithecus, or “Rama’s ape,” were a few front teeth, a large jaw bone, and fragments of facial bones. They were assumed to have represented an ancestor of man because the front teeth were smaller than most apes and the jaw was apparently human-like. Despite the lack of any hip or leg bones, many imaginative evolutionists conjectured that Ramapithecus walked upright. In 1979 a complete Ramapithecus skull was discovered. This skull revealed that the previous skull had been “reconstructed” erroneously to give it a human-like appearance. It turned out that Ramapithecus looked very similar to modern orangutans (Parker et al., 377).
A small piece of the top of a skull, a fragment of a left thighbone, and three molar teeth – these are the bones that evolutionists tell us are the remains of “Java man.” There are several facts that bring serious doubt on the assertion that the bones are from the same creature. The first is that the bones were not found all together but over an area of seventy feet! Second, the bones were found mixed with the bones of other extinct animals in a dried up riverbed. Finally, the bones were found over a period of one year (Huse, 99). Eugene DuBois, the discoverer of “Java Man” declared the bones to be 500,000 years old, and many evolutionists claim that they are 750,000 years old. However, several scientists have determined that the rock these bones were in could not be more than five hundred years old because of the regular volcanic eruptions and floods in Java (Parker et al., 378). Furthermore, not even the “experts” agree on what “Java Man” actually was. Twenty-four scientists met to analyze the fossils after they were found and three different answers were offered. Seven of the scientists said that the bones belonged to a man; ten said that the bones belonged to an ape; and seven said the bones represented a no longer missing “missing link” (Huse, 99). Even Eugene DuBois later changed his opinion and said that “Java Man” was constructed from the unrelated parts of a giant gibbon and a human. However, DuBois knew this fact long before he had admitted it because he had also found a completely human skull at the same level as “Java man” but kept this discovery a secret for thirty years (Morris and Parker, 154). Obviously, if humans lived as contemporaries with the supposed “Java man,” “Java man” could not have been their ancestor.
Geology: Evidence against Evolution
The geologic column has been put forward by evolutionists as the biggest piece of “evidence” for the theory of evolution. However, evolutionary geologists during the nineteenth century arranged the geologic column based upon the assumption that evolution and uniformitarianism (the belief that geological processes continue today at the same rate as they have in the past) are facts (Huse, 14). Therefore, the biggest piece of “evidence” for evolution is the assumption of evolution!
“The only chronometric scale applicable in geologic history for the stratigraphic classification of rocks and for dating geologic events exactly is furnished by the fossils. Owing to the irreversibility of evolution, they offer an unambiguous time scale for relative age determinations and for worldwide correlations of rocks.”
– O. H. Schindewolf
So we see that the assumed age of the fossils given by the theory of evolution is the basis by which the rocks are dated. Therefore, for illustration, if a trilobite fossil is found in a certain rock, the rock is, for no other reason, assumed to be “Cambrian” (supposedly 543,000,000 years old). The entire arrangement of the column is based upon supposed ages of the animals, which are based upon the theory of evolution. There is no place in the world where you can see the entire column – if there was, the rock strata would be approximately one hundred miles deep (Parker et al., 369). Furthermore, there are many places in the world where the geologic column is contradicted by nature.
In many places animals that, according to the theory of evolution, never lived together are found fossilized together. In New Mexico, Arizona, Missouri, Kentucky, Illinois, other U.S. states, and also in Mexico there have been found many contemporaneous human and dinosaur footprints (Huse, 17). Many trilobite fossils have been found in the fossilized footprints of men. In Utah, several fossilized trilobites were found in the fossilized footprint of a sandaled man. The fossil of a squished trilobite has been found in the fossilized footprint of a barefoot young child (Wilder-Smith, 166).
The fossils of humans, dinosaurs, and trilobites are usually not found together. Evolutionists often present the segregation of the fossils as proof of evolution. However, the segregation only makes rational sense. Man did not live with trilobites and dinosaurs thousands of years ago any more than he lives with starfish and crocodiles today. Our fossils would rationally be found in different places. Nevertheless, the fact that our fossilized tracks crossed (unfortunately for the trilobites) proves that we once lived contemporaneously.
Also worthy of note are ancient pictographs and etchings made by man which depict creatures that, according to the theory of evolution, never lived with man. In Arizona and Rhodesia, there are pictographs of dinosaurs on cave and canyon walls. Pieces of pottery have been unearthed by archaeologists which depict five-toed llamas – animals which evolutionists tell us went extinct about 27 million years before “modern man” evolved. Ancient Mayan Indians had apparently lived among birds which resembled the archaeopteryx. Sculptures of such birds made by the Mayans have been found; however, that step in evolution apparently happened about 130 million years before the rise of “modern man” (Huse, 17).
Even the fact that there are great numbers of fossils goes against the evolutionary teaching of uniformitarianism. Unlike in the past, large-scale fossilization does not occur in our modern world. Where mass death has occured, such as the millions of buffaloes that were killed on the Great Plains, fossils are not found. For a fossil to form, a specimen must be rapidly buried with large layers of sediments. This only happens when catastrophic events occur such as mudslides, volcanic eruptions, floods, and so forth, because, obviously, large amounts of sediments are not ordinarily (or “uniformly”) deposited. However, the occasional local catastrophe does not trap enough animals to account for the immense fossil record that we have. In a local catastrophe, animals flee the destruction; but there are many places in the world where mass graveyards have been found where hundreds of animals have been fossilized by some disaster. These animals could not escape and were rapidly buried by layers of sediments. Often in these burials, the fossils represent animals from completely different and widely separated climate zones. Uniformitarianism has no explanation for these mass graveyards; however, creation scientists explain this phenomenon by the worldwide flood. There was no place for any animal to escape to; the entire world was destroyed. Only a worldwide flood can satisfactorily explain the cause and reason for the millions of fossils that have been discovered.
Furthermore, only a worldwide flood can explain the formation of the rock strata in the “geologic column.” Each layer represents a period of depositing, and each break represents a change in the type of sediment, velocity of the carrying water, a complete halt in the depositing, or numerous other factors. If there were great time gaps in between each period of depositing, as suggested by uniformitarianism, then each rock strata would have been exposed to long periods of erosion. In that case they would not be here today for us to study. The rock layers and any fossils which they contained would have been destroyed.
Meteoritic Dust: Evidence against Evolution
Meteoritic dust is gradually settling on the earth’s surface at a constant rate. In 1960, Hans Pettersson measured this influx of meteoritic dust as being about 14 million tons per year (Pettersson, 132). This would mean that 14 x 1019 pounds of meteoritic dust has settled on planet earth in the past five billion years. If we assume that the density of compacted meteoritic dust is 140 pounds per cubic foot, this corresponds to a volume of 1018 cubic feet. Now if we coat the earth – which has a surface area of 5.5 x 1015 square feet – with this dust, we should have a layer covering earth 182 feet deep! Obviously this is not the case either on earth or on the moon. The only reasonable conclusion is that the earth and the moon have not existed for 5 billion years. In the book Meteor Orbits and Dust, published by NASA in 1976, G. S. Hawkins more accurately measured the influx of meteoritic dust coming to earth each year as being about 200 million tons. This would obviously indicate an even younger age for earth and the moon.
Earth’s Magnetic Field: Evidence against Evolution
Humans have carefully measured the strength of earth’s magnetic field for 135 years; and we have found, by this extensive data, that earth’s magnetic field most probably has a half life of 1,400 years (Barnes, 132). Put more simply, 1,400 years ago the strength of earth’s magnetic field was twice as strong as it is today. This means that 10,000 years ago the strength of earth’s magnetic field would have equaled that of a magnetic star (Huse, 21). Obviously, earth hasn’t been around that long.
Our Sun: Evidence against Evolution
The sun, like everything else in our universe, is wearing down. The sun is growing smaller, and its shrinking is occurring at a continuous rate. Since the 1700s the decreasing of the solar diameter has been measured to be occurring at a constant rate of 0.1 seconds of an arc per century (Gribbin, 592). Now, going backwards in time using this data we can figure out the size of the sun one million years ago (i.e. the supposed peak of the Ice Age). However, to be exceedingly gracious to our evolutionist friends, we’ll only extrapolate backwards in time at one fifth of the rate that the sun is presently decreasing at. Doing so would reveal that the sun would have been twice its present size at that time (Gribbin, 592).
Evilution: The Decline of Man
Some Christians and Jews have tried to reconcile their belief in the Bible or the Torah with the theory of evolution by interpreting the first chapters in Genesis in a metaphorical way. They use the Hebrew word for day, yom, as the basis for their argument. The word yom does mean “day,” but it can also be defined as a “length of time.” It is true that in some uses of the word, the definition “day” is not intended. However, if we read the whole text of Genesis chapter one and gather its context, we will see that the definition “day” is indeed intended.
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. Then God said, “Let there be light;” and there was light. God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.”
– Genesis 1:1-5
When the phrase “there was evening and morning” is used, all doubt that each of these verses could be talking about anything other than a literal, twenty-four hour period should be erased. Furthermore, the phrase is used more than once throughout the Genesis account:
“God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.”
– Genesis 1:8
“There was evening and there was morning, a third day.”
– Genesis 1:13
“There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.”
– Genesis 1:19
“There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.”
– Genesis 1:23
“God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.”
– Genesis 1:31
We should not try to harmonize the professed wisdom of man with the Word of God in an attempt to appear wise to the world. When we try to do so, serious problems arise. If God created the world through evolution, the doctrine of sin would have to be radically changed. Which ape chose sin? If evolution is true, there was no Adam and Eve. If we did not literally choose sin as Genesis tells us we did, then it would be unjust for God to condemn us. If evolution is true, there is no reason to follow the rules of morality given to us in the Bible. Anyone who looks at our culture today should be able to see a striking similarity between it and the people talked about in Romans chapter one.
“Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
“For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.”
– Romans 1:22-32
Our society has been taught that there is no God, and that man has evolved from animals. As a result, the moral framework upon which our nation was built has been destroyed. Our culture now allows the killing of innocent babies before they are even born. Every day four thousand babies are murdered in America’s abortion clinics (www.prolife.com). Evolution degrades human life, and a culture that accepts it as truth will do the same.
Creation: Evidence of a Loving Creator
Our universe bears the evidence of intelligent design. We should logically reason that there is a God who created our world and has a purpose for every one of us. God created man with a free will; and gave him a choice to either obey God by eating from the tree of life or choose rebellion by eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Man, through Adam, chose rebellion (sin). Yet, God still loves mankind and has provided a way of salvation from the hell punishment we all deserve.
“But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us . . . . For as through the one man’s disobedience [Adam] the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One [Jesus Christ] the many will be made righteous.”
– Romans 5:8, 19
Christ took the punishment for our sins upon himself so that we could be free from our eternal hell debt. He offers this freedom to everyone as a gift; we just need to simply accept the gift by believing that He took the full punishment for all our sins.
“For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
– Romans 6:23
Jesus Christ was God in human form. The “form of God” separated Himself from the Holy Spirit and the Father in heaven and took on the “form of a bond-servant.”
“. . . who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.”
– Philippians 2:6-7
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . . And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us . . .”
– John 1:1, 14
Our sin penalty could only be paid for by the shedding of innocent blood. Only God, being sinless, could fit this requirement. Jesus’ life blood is the only acceptable sacrifice for sin.
“And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.”
– Hebrews 9:22
“By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God . . .”
– Hebrews 10:10-12
“knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold . . . but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ.”
– 1 Peter 1:18-19
Jesus took our sin debt upon Himself and died in our place. He suffered the punishment that we deserve for our sins on the cross and in hell for three days before He resurrected and ascended into Heaven.
“But the righteousness based on faith speaks as follows: ‘Do not say in your heart, “Who will ascend into heaven?” (that is, to bring Christ down), or “Who will descend into the abyss?” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead)’.”
– Romans 10:6-7
Jesus took your place in hell (abyss) so that you would not have to go there; this is how much He loves you.
“Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.”
– John 15:13
“Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.”
– Romans 5:9
“For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him, may have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”
– John 6:40
Works Cited
All Bible references are from the New American Standard Version.
“Quotable Quote,”<http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/show/72509> (accessed 17 May 2009).
“George Wald,” <http://www.conservapedia.com/George_Wald> (accessed 17 May 2009).
Mayr, Ernst. Systematics and the Origin of Species. Washington D. C.: National Academies Press, 1942. Quoted in Niles Eldredge, Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1985, 33.
Patterson, Colin. “Cladistics,” BBC. 4 March 1982.
“Animal & Plant Species,” <http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/sci-ev/sci_vs_ev_11b.htm> (accessed 17 May 2009).
Thompson, Keith S. “The Meanings of Evolution.” American Scientist 70 (September/October 1982) : 529.
Chesterton, G. K. Saint Thomas Aquinas. Garden City, New York: Doubleday Image, 1933.
Eddington, Sir Arthur Stanly. “Gifford Lectures.” In The Nature of the Physical World, 74. Cambridge: University Press,1928.
Morris, Henry M. Scientific Creationism. El Cajon, California: Master Books, 1974.
Huse, Scott. The Collapse of Evolution, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1983.
Prigogine, Ilya. <http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Creationism_and_Intelligent_Design> (accessed 17 May 2009).
Darwin, Charles. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, 1859.
Salisbury, Frank. “Doubts About the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution.” American Biology Teacher (September 1971) : 338.
“The Concept of Creation by Chance is Ludicrous,” <http://www.creationdefense.org/24.htm> (accessed 17 May 2009).
Matthews, L. H. “Introduction” to Darwin’s On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. 6th ed. London: J. M. Dent and Sons, Ltd., 1971.
Parker, Gregory, Keith Graham, Delores Shimmin, and George Thompson. Biology: God’s Living Creation. 2d ed. Pensacola: A Beka Book, 1997.
Arnold, C. A., An Introduction to Paleobotany. New York: McGraw-Hill Publ. Co., 1947.
Corner. Evolution in Contemporary Botanical Thought. Edited by A. M. MacLeod and L. S. Cobley. Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961.
Kay, Marshall, and Edwin Colbert. Stratigraphy and Life History. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1965.
Simpson, George G. Tempo and Mode in Evolution. NY: Columbia University Press, 1944.
“Fossils and the Geologic Column,” <http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0731_Fossils__Geologic_Co.html> (accessed 18 May 2009).
Millot, Jacques. “The Coelacanth.” Scientific American 193 (December 1955) : 37.
“Tiktaalik: Our Ancestor?,” <http://www.icr.org/article/2962/> (accessed 18 May 2009).
Darwin, Charles. The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin. Edited by Francis Darwin. London: John Murray, 1887.
“Pederpes,” <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederpes> (accessed 18 May 2009).
“Protoavis,” <http://www.bsu.edu/web/00cyfisher/> (accessed 18 May 2009).
Swinton, W. E. Biology and Comparative Physiology of Birds. Vol. 1. Edited by A. J. Marshall. New York: Academic Press, 1960.
“Biology Textbook Fraud,” <http://www.bible.ca/tracks/textbook-fraud-dawn-horse-eohippus.htm> (accessed 18 May 2009).
Kofahl, R. E. Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter. San Diego: Beta Books, 1977.
Moore, John N., and Harold S. Slusher. Biology: A Search for Order in Complexity. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1970.
Wysong, R.L. The Creation-Evolution Controversy. Midland: Inquiry Press, 1981.
Simpson, George G. Life of the Past. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1953.
Parker, Greg, Keith Graham, Delores Shimmin, and George Thompson. Biology: God’s Living Creation. 2d ed. Pensacola: A Beka Book, 2005.
Davis, D. Dwight. “Comparative Anatomy and the Evolution of Vertebrates.” In Genetics, Paleontology and Evolution, ed. Jepson, Mayr, and Simpson, 74. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1949.
Eldredge, Niles. Interview by Luther Sunderland. Published in Darwin’s Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems. El Cajon: Master Books, 1988.
Simpson, George G. The Major Features of Evolution. New York: Columbia University Press, 1953.
Simpson, George G. Tempo and Mode in Evolution. New York: Columbia University Press, 1944.
Romer, Alfred. Vertebrate Paleontology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966.
Morris, Henry M., and Gary E. Parker. What is Creation Science? El Cajon: Master Books, 1987.
Gish, Duane T. Evolution? The Fossils Say No! 3d ed. San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers, 1979.
Criswell, W. A. Did Man Just Happen? Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing Co., 1973.
Schindewolf, O. H. “Comments on Some Stratigraphic Terms,” American Journal of Science 255 (June 1957) : 394.
Wilder-Smith, A. E. The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution. San Diego: Master Books, 1981.
Pettersson, Hans. “Cosmic Spherules and Meteoritic Dust.” Scientific American 202 (February 1960).
Barnes, Thomas G. Origin and Destiny of Earth’s Magnetic Field. 2d ed. San Diego: Institute for Creation Research, 1983.
Parker, Gary E. Creation: The Facts of Life. San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers, 1980.
Gribbin, John. “The Curious Case of the Shrinking Sun.” New Scientist 97 (March 1983) : 592
“Pro-Life,” <www.prolife.com> (accessed 18 May 2009).